James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts will protect safety on our roads by requiring foreign commercial vehicles, that means trucks and buses, to meet the same standards as U.S. trucks and buses. This is not anti-NAFTA. This is not a pro-Teamsters issue. I-35 goes from my district all the way to the Mexican border. I do not want those unsafe Mexican trucks rolling up into Minnesota, up into Duluth, rolling down the hill to Lake Superior and killing people. Our U.S. safety standards are set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, inspected by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and require a certification label. Yes, it does require a label and that label means something. It means that each vehicle has been built in compliance with U.S. standards, specifically antilock brakes, automatic slack adjusters for heavy vehicles and for trucks, rear underride guards that save lives when there is a rear-end accident. I have been at the border. I have seen those trucks from Mexico. We funded Mexico for training of inspectors who do not inspect. They go off to do something else. We do not have enough money in our inspection budget to place inspectors at the border to check those trucks and make sure they are in compliance. That is what we need. All those trucks and buses operating in the United States comply with U.S. safety standards for a good reason. We do not want people being killed on roadways in the United States. Five thousand people a year are killed by car-truck crashes in the United States. If we let those unsafe trucks in from Mexico, that number will go up astronomically. We cannot allow that. This is a safety issue. This is not a trade issue. If they make sure that they comply, they can come into the United States. Meet our standards. Meet the same standards that U.S. trucks and buses have to meet in this country. Let us not have one standard for the U.S. and another standard for trucks and buses coming in from Mexico. Those that come in from Canada already are in compliance by 85, 95 percent. Let us have fairness and, yes, protect but protect American lives on our roadways.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula). I acknowledge that the point of order would lie against the amendment. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss my amendment and then subsequently to withdraw that amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to address an issue that few of us want to talk about, but which all of us are going to face in some way or another, and that is, end-of-life care. We are all getting there, and this amendment would do five things. It is derived from a bill I introduced last year that would do five things. It would provide grants through NIH to train health care professionals in the care of patients with fatal, chronic illness. It would direct the NIH to expand and to intensify research on fatal, chronic illnesses. Three, it would establish pilot programs under Medicare to improve delivery of care and continuity of care for end-of- life considerations. Four, it would provide funds for advanced care planning; and, five, facilitate access to hospice care when that becomes necessary at the end-of-the-life decision. Why is this an important issue? Well, frankly, it is an issue that my wife, Jean, and I have discussed around the dinner table. We have both lost spouses who succumbed at a very unusually and unanticipated age to cancer. We both attended to frail and disabled parents. We all have friends who have been in the same position. As the baby boom generation reaches older age, the number of people facing serious illness and death is going to double over the next 25 years. Second, 28 percent of Medicare's budget over the last few years has been spent caring for the last few years, in many cases the last few months of life. Who are there to provide these services? These are family members. The value of the services that family care-givers provide in a sense for free is estimated in excess of $250 billion a year. Third, there are a number of professionals in the health care field who do not get training in the course of their medical education in palliative care, in end-of-life decision-making with families. We need to do a better job of training our health care professionals. We need to do a better job of preparing families for end-of-life care decision-making. We have to acknowledge that Americans are living longer. The fastest growing age group in our society is people over age 85. Half of them need some help with personal care. We should be doing a better job with our NIH resources to help families, to help health care professionals, to help patients themselves to deal with fatal, chronic illness, the end-of-life care decisions. That is simply what this amendment would do, provide those resources. I take this opportunity to discuss the issue in this detail so that next year when we come back into session again, this bill will be reintroduced and will have an opportunity for a broader discussion and legislative action, to bring to the floor legislation that will be meaningful, implement these recommendations and then be eligible for the funding that I requested and set forth in the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I participated in two important education meetings in my district yesterday, and missed two votes on legislation considered on the suspension calendar. As the new school year begins, I greatly appreciated the opportunity to visit with students, teachers and education administrators at the Nashwauk-Keewatin High School and the Crosby-Ironton High School concerning the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 422 to approve H.R. 4381, and I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 423 to approve H.R. 4556.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I earnestly support the extension of the current law as embodied in the pending legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4916, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part IV, but I regret that we are forced, for the fifth time, to temporarily extend the highway, transit, and highway safety programs. Since our last extension two months ago, there has been some progress on the TEA 21 reauthorization. Nevertheless, the Committee on Conference has come to no resolution on the appropriate funding level for successor legislation to TEA 21. Members of both parties of both Houses have worked diligently and in great earnest with each other and the White House, but have been unable to reach a meeting of the minds. We agreed to extend current law to continue the vitally important work of our highway, transit, and highway safety programs. Tonight, we move forward with that effort. However, I regret that, because of certain objections from Members of the other side of the aisle and the Other Body, this extension bill does not continue two critical elements of TEA 21. First, the bill does not ensure that every State receive a 90.5 percent minimum guarantee return. Second, the bill does not continue TEA 21's High Priority Projects program. With regard to minimum guarantee, the Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Young and on a bipartisan basis, introduced a bill (H.R. 4864) earlier this week that would have ensured that each State received a 90.5 percent return. Regrettably, I understand that the Budget Committee Chairman and others objected to H.R. 4864 because it would have increased the bill's highway allocation by one percent. As a result, this bill does not ensure that each State receives 90.5 percent and, as a result, some States lose an enormous amount of highway construction funding. California loses $34 million; Florida $36 million; Ohio $30 million; Oklahoma $13 million; and Texas loses $115 million; to name just a few. I don't think that outcome is fair. If we are truly extending TEA 21, we should ensure that each state receives the guaranteed 90.5 percent minimum set forth in that legislation. I am hopeful that we will remedy this situation when we return in September, but I realize that the same objections we face to remedying this problem tonight will still be there in September. Mr. Speaker, I support passage of this fifth extension. Our Nation's highway, transit, and highway safety programs are simply too important to shut down. I believe this bill could be better, and I urge this Body to do better when we are back in September.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I thank the distinguished chairman for his explanation. He has worked diligently on this, put his heart and soul into this initiative. We are very hopeful. I join the chairman in the hope that over the ensuing weeks of August there will be a prayerful resolution to the matters and prayerful successful outcome to our negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the subcommittee. (Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I regret that, for a record fifth time, we are again on this floor to extend the highway transit and highway safety programs. Our last extension was 2 months ago, amidst high hopes that we would be able to conclude a conference on the TEA-LU bill that the House passed and the companion bill passed in the other body. The committee of conference, as we quaintly say in the language of the House, has come to no resolution thereon, but there were signs of progress today. Members of both parties and both Houses have worked diligently and in great earnest to reach an agreement with the White House, but we have not been able to reach a meeting of the minds. We have agreed to extend current law to continue the vitally important work of our highway transit and highway safety programs. Tonight we move forward with that effort. To explain the measure pending before us, I yield to the chairman of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today my colleagues, Congresswoman Brown, the Ranking Democratic Member of the Railroad Subcommittee of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Congressmen Lipinski, DeFazio, Cummings, Blumenauer, Larsen, and Meehan, join me in introducing H.R. ___'s, the ``Protecting Railroad Operators, Travelers, Employees, and Communities with Transportation Security Act of 2004,'' PROTECTS Act. On March 11, 2004, a coordinated terrorist attack against the commuter train system of Madrid, Spain, killed 191 people and wounded more than 1,800 others, making it the deadliest terrorist attack against European civilians since 1988. The attacks consisted of a series of ten explosions that occurred onboard four commuter trains. If we learned one thing about terrorists from the Madrid attack, it is that they stick to what they know. Since 2000, bombs have been detonated or defused on railways in India, Russia, the Philippines, the Czech Republic, South Africa, Israel, and Germany. In France, a group calling itself AZF claims it has hidden 10 bombs around the country in order to extort $5 million from the French government. The group demonstrated its credibility by suggesting investigators dig under a rail line; they found a small bomb powerful enough to derail a train. Terrorist threats against trains in the United States are also increasing. Just last week, a Seattle man who was aboard a cross- country Amtrak train was charged with telephoning bomb threats against the train as it passed through Wisconsin. In May 2003, Lyman Faris, a truck driver from Ohio who pleaded guilty to providing material support to al-Qaeda, told investigators that the organization wanted to derail a train near Washington, D.C. Other intelligence sources report that al-Qaeda operatives have targeted the Washington rail corridor and that some have discussed exploding a train near storage tanks containing hazardous chemicals. Recent news articles report that, due to increased security threats, New York and New Jersey have put together an ``unprecedented'' rail security plan for the Republican Convention, which includes conducting inspections on platforms, boosting canine units, locking restrooms, and banning overhead luggage. With ever-increasing threats, our Nation's rail system is at great risk. Accordingly, the Federal Government needs a permanent rail security plan that assures the safety and security of all rail passengers. The fact is that the Federal Government is spending $4.4 billion this year on aviation security, but it's spending only $65 million on rail security, even though five times as many people take trains as planes every day. The freight railroads have adopted some security measures and Amtrak has added police and dog units and removed large fixtures, such as garbage receptacles and vending machines, from their platforms, but the railroads can't do the job themselves. The PROTECTS Act ensures that the Federal Government will do its part to take the necessary steps to address security risks on our Nation's railroads, while protecting rail passengers, rail workers, and citizens who live or work in the communities in which railroads operate. The bill authorizes over $1 billion to safeguard our Nation's rail network from terrorist threats. $500 million is authorized for grants to State and local governments, railroad carriers, rail labor, and others for the full or partial reimbursement of costs incurred in preventing or responding to terrorist activities or other intercity passenger rail and freight rail security threats. A total of $597 million is authorized for Amtrak to make fire and life-safety improvements to tunnels on the Northeast Corridor in New York, New York, Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC. $65 million is authorized for system-wide Amtrak security upgrades. This funding is critical as Amtrak shuttles 66,000 passengers every day, two-thirds of them through the targeted Northeast corridor. Terrorist attacks on crowded stations and on key elements of the infrastructure are a particular cause for concern. A total of $50 million is authorized for the Secretary of Transportation to create a research and development program to improve freight and intercity passenger rail security. Funding is also provided for a vulnerability assessment of freight and passenger rail transportation and a study and pilot program on passenger, baggage, and cargo screening. Moreover, the PROTECTS Act focuses on something other bills ignore: the importance of ensuring that key workers have the necessary support and training required to protect our rail system, whether those workers are railroad employees or emergency responders. Rail workers are truly the eyes and ears of the rail industry. They greet passengers, sell tickets, operate trains, maintain track and signal systems, dispatch trains, operate bridges, and repair rail cars. They are in the most direct position to spot security risks and potential threats. The PROTECTS Act requires rail carriers to provide security training to these workers to ensure that they are prepared to recognize and react to potential threat conditions. Moreover, the bill strengthens whistleblower protections to ensure that workers who report or identify a security risk will not face retribution or retaliation from their employers. These protections are similar to the whistleblower protections provided to airline employees, except that this would allow a wlhistleblower to bring an action in the appropriate district court if the Secretary of Labor fails to issue a final decision within 180 days of the filing of a complaint. A rail worker should not have to choose between doing the right thing on security and his or her job. Despite whistleblower protections in current law, employees still experience employer harassment and intimidation when reporting accidents, injuries, and other safety concerns. When I began reviewing the issue of rail security, I sent a letter, along with Congressmen Henry Waxman and Elijah Cummings, to the Government Accountability Office, GAO, requesting a review of ten communities to see whether they are prepared to respond to rail incidents involving hazardous materials, whether accidental or intentional. Accidents in urban areas, such as the 2001 incident in the Howard Street Tunnel in Baltimore, Maryland, involving a fire fueled by hazardous materials, and a leak in hydrocholric acid from a parked tank car in an urban area in Lowell, Massachusetts, have called attention to the safety of hazardous materials shipped by rail. GAO found that many emergency responders were not properly trained to respond to incidents involving hazardous materials and radioactive waste. Local fire department officials that GAO visited in all ten communities confirmed that fire department personnel have received the awareness-level training, the lowest level of training recommended in National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 472, Professional Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials Incidents, which provides first responders with the knowledge and skills to identify a hazardous materials incident and to contact the appropriate response resource. However, NFPA representatives reported that the minimum level of training for first responders should actually be at the operations level, the second highest level of training described in NFPA Standard 472, which trains responders to plan and initiate a response to the incident. The PROTECTS Act does just that, but it doesn't stop there. GAO found that while local communities have most of the equipment needed to respond to hazardous material incidents, some locations lacked essential equipment, such as detectors, decontamination equipment, and personal protective gear. My bill addresses this need. It authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to State and local governments, as well as nonprofit employee organizations representing emergency responders, for advanced firefighter turnout gear. The PROTECTS Act also ensures that emergency responders know the types and quantities of hazardous materials stored in transit in their communities to aid in emergency response planning and to ensure that, once again, the local emergency responders have the proper training and equipment to respond to incidents involving dangerous materials. Winston Churchill, in his first statement as Prime Minister to the House of Commons, said ``without victory there is no survival,'' including, as he noted, ``victory in spite of all terror.'' The PROTECTS Act is a necessary step to ensuring that end. A detailed summary of the bill's provisions is attached. The Protecting Railroad Operators, Travelers, Employees, and Communities With Transportation Security Act of 2004--The PROTECTS Act On March 11, 2004, a coordinated terrorist attack against the commuter train system of Madrid, Spain, killed 191 people and wounded more than 1,800 others, making it the deadliest terrorist attack against European civilians since 1988. The attacks consisted of a series of ten explosions that occurred onboard four commuter trains. Bombings on trains are nothing new for terrorists. Our Nation's rail transportation network has also been targeted. Lyman Faxis, a truck driver from Ohio who pleaded guilty last May to providing material support to al-Qaeda, told investigators that the organization wanted to derail a train near Washington, DC. Other intelligence sources report that al-Qaeda operatives have targeted the Washington rail corridor and that some had discussed exploding a train near storage tanks containing hazardous chemicals. Then, last Friday, a Seattle man who was aboard a cross-country Amtrak train was charged with telephoning bomb threats against the train as it passed through Wisconsin on Tuesday. The Federal Government is spending $4.4 billion this year on aviation security, and spending only $65 million on rail security, even though five times as many people take trains as planes every day. While the freight railroads have adopted some security measures and Amtrak has added police and dog units and removed large, fixtures from their platforms, such as trashcans and vending machines, the railroads can't do the job themselves. The PROTECTS Act of 2004 ensures that the Federal Government will take the necessary steps to address certain security risks on our rail transportation network, while protecting the safety and security of travelers, employees, and communities. The bill, among other things, authorizes $500 million to be appropriated for freight and passenger rail security improvements, a total of $597 million for Amtrak's fire and life-safety improvements, $65 million for system-wide Amtrak security upgrades, and a total of $100 million for rail research and development. Vulnerability Assessment. Requires the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to complete a vulnerability assessment of freight and passenger rail transportation, develop recommendations for improving rail security, and finalize a plan for the Federal Government to provide increased security support during high or .severe threat levels of alert. The bill includes a reporting requirement to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The bill authorizes $5 million in fiscal year 2005 for this initiative. Memorandum of Agreement. Requires the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Homeland Security to execute a memorandum of agreement governing the roles and responsibilities of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security in addressing rail security. Study of Foreign Rail Transport Security Programs. Requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study of rail passenger transportation security programs in Japan, the European Union, and other foreign countries. The results of the study must be submitted to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, along with the Comptroller General's assessment of whether the United States can implement the same or similar security measures as those which are determined effective under this study. Rail Police Officers. Allows rail police officers who are employed by a particular rail carrier to enforce the laws of a jurisdiction in which any rail carrier owns property. Review of Rail Regulations. Requires the Department of Transportation, to review existing rail regulations for the purpose of identifying areas in which those regulations need to be revised to improve rail security. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Act, the Inspector General must send a report to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, including recommendations for changes to the regulations reviewed and any legislative changes required to improve railroad security. Freight and Passenger Rail Security Improvement Program. Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to State and local governments, railroad carriers, non-profit employee organizations representing rail workers or emergency responders, owners and lessors of rail cars used for transporting hazardous materials, shippers of hazardous materials by rail, universities, colleges, and research centers for full or partial reimbursement of costs incurred for certain activities to prevent or respond to acts of terrorism, sabotage, or other intercity passenger rail and freight rail security threats. The bill authorizes $500 million in fiscal year 2005 for this program. Fire and Life-Safety Improvements. Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to Amtrak for fire and life-safety improvements to tunnels on the Northeast Corridor in New York, NY, Baltimore, MD, and Washington, DC. A total of $597 million is authorized for this program. Rail Security Research and Development. Allows the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to establish a research and development program to improve freight and intercity passenger rail security. The bill authorizes $50 million in each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006 for this program. Rail Worker Security Training Program. Requires the Secretary of Transportation to develop guidance for a security training program to prepare rail workers for potential threat conditions. Railroad carriers would be required to develop the program in accordance with the guidance and submit it to the Secretary for approval. Once the program is approved, the railroad carriers would have 180 days to complete the training. Whistleblower Protections. Strengthens whistleblower protections to ensure that no employee or other person may be harassed, prosecuted, held liable, or discriminated against in any way for commencing, testifying, assisting, or participating in a proceeding or any other action to enhance rail security, or for refusing to violate or assist in violating any law, rule, or regulation, related to rail security. The bill would also allow claimants to bring an action in the appropriate district court if the Secretary of Labor has not issued a final decision within 180 days of the filing of a complaint, and there is no showing that the delay is due to the bad faith of the claimant. Systemwide Amtrak Security Upgrades. Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to Amtrak to secure tunnels, Amtrak trains, and Amtrak stations; to obtain a watch list identification system; to obtain train tracking and interoperable communications systems; to hire additional police and security officers, including canine units; and to expand emergency preparedness efforts. The bill authorizes $65 million in fiscal year 2005 for this program. Public Awareness. Requires the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to develop a national plan to increase awareness of measures that the general public, passengers, and employees can take to increase rail security. Passenger, Baggage, and Cargo Screening. Requires the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security to analyze the cost and feasibility of requiring security screening of passengers, baggage, and cargo on passenger trains. The bill also requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a pilot program of random security screening of passengers and baggage at passenger rail stations served by Amtrak. The bill authorizes $5 million for fiscal year 2005 for this program. Emergency Responder Training Standards. Ensures that persons responding to emergencies that involve the removal and transportation of hazardous materials and high hazard materials are properly trained to protect nearby persons, property, or the environment from the effects of hazmat accidents. Information for First Responders. Allows rail tank cars containing hazardous materials and high hazard materials to be transported or stored on rail tracks as long as information identifying the tank car, the hazardous materials within the tank car, and response guidance are immediately available to local emergency responders. Such information shall be provided through the Operation Respond Institute's technology or similar technology. Definitions. Defines `high hazard' materials as poison inhalation hazard materials, Class 2.3 gases, Class 6.1 materials, anhydrous ammonia, and Class 7 radioactive materials.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the so- called Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313). This bill, contrary to its title, has nothing to do with protecting the institution of marriage. This bill is, in fact, an all-out assault on the U.S. Constitution and our entire system of government. H.R. 3313 has monumentally perilous implications for three basic principles of our democracy--equal protection, due process, and the separation of power between the three branches of government. This bill discriminates against one class of people, homosexuals, by saying they cannot challenge a law in federal court to determine whether their fundamental rights have been violated. This bill would enable any future majority in Congress to draft laws that would discriminate against any class of people or minority group, and which would then be insulated from a challenge in federal court. As delineated in the Constitution, the separation of powers doctrine represents the fundamental principle that our federal government consists of three basic and distinct functions, each of which must be exercised by a different branch of government, so as to avoid the arbitrary or excessive exercise of power by any single ruling body. Through this structure, the Framers of the Constitution sought to create an effective, interdependent governmental system which would limit the power vested in any one branch. H.R. 3313, if enacted, would undermine our system of checks and balances, which was carefully crafted by our Founding Fathers to ensure that none of the three arms of government could encroach upon another, or impose its will unilaterally upon the public. One element of the checks and balances system is the principle of judicial independence, which is so crucial to maintaining our unique democratic system. The Supreme Court's role (under the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison) is as the final authority on the constitutionality of federal laws. By passing H.R. 3313, Congress would arbitrarily usurp the Supreme Court's power and rightful purpose by appointing itself as both maker and arbiter of the law. In 1937, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent to Congress a bill to reorganize the federal judiciary, which was motivated by the consistent opposition that his New Deal legislation had been encountering in the lower federal courts and the Supreme Court. By increasing the number of judges on the Supreme Court, President Roosevelt hoped to change the balance of opinion of the court. President Roosevelt's proposal met with fiery opposition in Congress-- even by those who supported his New Deal policies. Simply put, whether the underlying intent of a legislative initiative is good or bad, if it subverts the Constitution and destroys the independence of the judiciary, it should be defeated. Over the years, notable conservatives have spoken out against similar court stripping proposals. For example, in 1985, Senator Barry Goldwater stated, ``What particularly troubles me about [court stripping proposals] is that I see no limit to the practice. There is no clear or coherent standard to define why we shall control the Court in one area but not another. The only criterion seems to be that whenever a momentary majority can be brought together in disagreement with a judicial action, it is fitting to control the federal courts.'' Goldwater also said ``those who seek absolute power . . . are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth, and let me remind you they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyranny. Absolute power does corrupt and those who seek it must be suspect and must be stopped.'' During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government, and they demanded a ``bill of rights'' that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. The ten amendments to the Constitution, which were enumerated in 1789, have since been expanded to include other democratic principles. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right. Another fundamental principle which is mentioned in the 5th and 14th amendments, due process, requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be evenhanded, so that individuals are not subjected to the arbitrary exercise of government power. In his 1961 dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman, Justice Harlan stated, ``[t]he guaranties of due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta's `per legem terrae' and considered as procedural safeguards `against executive usurpation and tyranny,' have in this country `become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation.' '' Indeed, this bill, if enacted, has implications that will haunt this body and our entire nation for years to come. Our Founding Fathers, by setting up our government with checks and balances, sought to protect the future of our democracy from the tyranny of the majority. Thomas Paine, in ``The Rights of Man'' said ``every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which proceeded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. . . . That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living or the dead?'' In earlier days, narrow-minded legislators have advocated court- stripping to fight policies they opposed, such as desegregation, but those efforts have always been defeated by sensible, rational lawmakers. No other Congress has passed a law that totally eliminates the federal courts' ability to review the constitutionality of a federal law. I pray that this 108th Congress will not be the first.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4056, the Commercial Aviation MANPADs Defense Act (CAMDA). Shoulder-fired missiles pose a serious threat to commercial aviation. Al Qaeda, through its actions, has clearly expressed the desire to strike at commercial aircraft with man-portable air defense systems, or MANPADs, and has trained its members to use them. Moreover, there is some evidence suggesting possible Al Qaeda links to two recent incidents involving MANPADs: In May 2002, a Saudi security patrol found a spent SA-7 tube inside a security fence at Prince Sultan Airbase; In November 2002, two shoulder-fired missiles were launched against a chartered Israeli Boeing 757-300 departing Kenya. MANPADs have proliferated into the hands of terrorists and insurgents. In fact, the number of MANPADs that cannot be accounted for--has greatly increased over the last year due largely to our war with Iraq. We also know that commercial aircraft are vulnerable. It has been estimated that over the last 25 years there have been as many as 35 attempts to shoot down civilian aircraft, resulting in the loss of 24 aircraft and 500 deaths. There is evidence to suggest that, in at least a few instances, multengine jets have been destroyed by MANPADs. And just last November, a DHL Airbus A-300 was severely damaged over Baghdad--actually losing hydraulics and flight controls--after being hit by a shoulder-fired missile. The bill now before us was introduced by Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Mica, Ranking Member DeFazio and Mr. Israel. The bill would require the President to pursue strong international diplomatic and cooperative efforts, including bilateral and multilateral treaties, that would limit the transfer and proliferation as well as encourage the destruction of MANPADs. This provision was inspired largely by our colleague from New York, Mr. Israel. Based on suggestions by our colleagues on the International Relations Committee, the bill has been amended to provide greater detail on the types of international cooperative and diplomatic measures the President should pursue. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently involved in a $120 million research effort to develop airborne antimissile defense countermeasures for commercial aircraft. CAMDA will expedite the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airworthiness and safety certification process for these cuontermeasure systems. CAMDA also encourages the President to pursue programs to reduce the number of MANPADs worldwide. Additionally, CAMDA requires the DHS to report to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee on the status of MANPAD vulnerability assessments that it is conducting at U.S. airports. The DHS will also report on any contingency plans that have been developed in the event that we receive indications that there is a high threat of a MANPAD attack. I thank Chairman Mica, Ranking Member DeFazio, and Mr. Israel for their strong leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4294, a bill to designate the annex to the Prettyman Courthouse in Washington, D.C., as the Judge William B. Bryant Annex. I thank Chairmen Young and LaTourette for their graciousness and support in moving this bill to the Floor in such an expeditious manner. Judge Bryant, who is 92 years old, is an icon in District legal circles. He practiced law in the 1940s and 1950s when the city was segregated. He could not join the D.C. Bar Association or use its facilities. Yet, he has achieved great stature as a trial lawyer and enjoys an enviable reputation. Judge Bryant is a lifelong D.C. resident who attended public schools and Howard Law School, where he graduated first in his class. He began his legal career in private practice in the District with the legendary African American law firm of Houston, Bryant, and Gardner. In 1965, he was nominated by President Johnson to the Federal bench and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in August of that year. Judge Bryant is the first African American to hold the post of Chief Judge. During his long, productive legal career Judge Bryant also served as the first African American Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District, and has taught at Howard Law School. He is also a World War II veteran, serving in the Army from 1943 until 1947. The judges of the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia unanimously agreed to name the annex in honor of Judge Bryant and approached Congresswoman Norton for her help. Judge Bryant's civil career is extraordinary. He is a role model, a mentor, a loyal friend and advisor. It is fitting and just that Judge William Bryant be honored with this designation. I support H.R. 4294 and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3884, a bill to designate the federal building and United States Courthouse located at 615 East Houston St., San Antonio Texas as the Hipolito F. Garcia Federal Building and United States Courthouse. Hipolito Garcia was a native Texan, born in San Antonio in 1925. Judge Garcia received his law degree from St. Mary's University School of Law in 1951. He was nominated by President Carter to the federal bench in 1979 and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1980. Judge Garcia was the first Hispanic judge for the Western District of Texas where he served with distinction for over two decades. Hipolito Garcia was renowned for his fairness, professionalism, and his commitment to public service. He was part of the ``Greatest Generation'', serving in the Army during World War II. Prior to his appointment to the federal bench, Judge Garcia worked as an assistant district attorney and as a county court-at-law judge. Throughout his accomplished career, he remained humble and proud of his San Antonio roots. I thank Congressman Gonzalez for introducing this legislation. It is a fitting tribute to an outstanding jurist and public servant. I support the bill and urge its passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us recognizes National Marina Day on August 14, 2004. There are more than 12,000 marinas in the United States providing safe harbor for millions of recreational vessels that operate on the lakes and navigable waters of the United States. These marinas include boatyards, yacht clubs, and public and private mooring basins across the United States. Marinas in the United States provide employment for more than 140,000 Americans. Perhaps most importantly, marinas provide a means for millions of Americans to relax and enjoy themselves boating. National Marina Day is a time to celebrate the history of marinas and boating and to look to the future of this vibrant industry. National Marina Day activities across the United States will include environmental demonstrations, youth center events, fishing rodeos, boating safety demonstrations, and marina open houses. National Marina Day is going to be celebrated from Maine to Florida; from Maryland to Los Angeles, CA. Marinas participating in the celebration include marinas from the Marriott Marina in San Diego to the Constitution Marina in Boston. Marina owners are working closely with the United States Coast Guard to step up vigilance at their facilities to improve security on U.S. waterways. These efforts include looking out for aggressive activities, attempts to gain access to vessels without proper identification, fixtures attached to structures, unusual diving operations, and vehicles and vessels in unusual locations. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting for the U.S. House of Representatives to recognize the ongoing contribution of marina operators in the United States to our economy, our security, our environment, and most of all, for providing us with a way of enjoying a day on the beautiful waterways of the United States. I urge my colleagues to support the Resolution.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Ohio understands what is kissing the fish and putting it back in, especially in Lake Erie.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Then you throw them back into the water, not throw them but you put them gently back into the water. You kiss the fish when you put it back in.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was inquiring about a fishing rodeo. That is catch-and-release fishery. You cast out and catch fish and weigh them.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his splendid management of the bill on our side. I compliment the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for his steadfast dedication to the purposes of the Coast Guard and his distinguished leadership of the subcommittee on this matter and other Coast Guard-related matters, and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for the steadfast support that we had in adhering to the principles of the committee as expressed by the House and passage of our version of the Coast Guard reauthorization. This is a very happy day for the committee and for the Coast Guard. It is the first time in 2 years, in fact a little bit more than that, that actually we are on the point of passing a Coast Guard reauthorization bill in the normal legislative course of business. It had to be done in the appropriations process last year, Mr. Speaker, because although the House did its work, passed the bill, the other body could not come to a resolution on the matter, and we never even got to conference. But this year, congratulations on both sides. The Coast Guard will have its charter spelled out legislatively as we need to do. We make a number of improvements, a significant increase in personnel for the Coast Guard. The former Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee was one of my first two committee assignments along with, then, Public Works when I was elected in 1974; and the personnel allocated to the Coast Guard in 1975 was listed at 39,000. It remained at that level for the next 30 years, and only recently have we begun to raise the number of personnel for the Coast Guard, while all along adding new responsibilities to the Coast Guard. Congress so loved the Coast Guard and so admired the work it could do that it laid on 27 new authorities and responsibilities for the Coast Guard to carry out without adding the personnel to do the job, and only in the last 8 years, 9 years have we begun the Blue Water program and the program of adding extended endurance helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft and surface vessels and high-endurance, high-speed vessels to combat the illegal drug trade and immigration trade in the Caribbean and on the coastal waterways of the United States. This legislation takes us significantly forward. We authorize Coast Guard to set hours of service limits for personnel working on towing vessels to avoid the kind of tragedies that occurred at South Padre Island. We require all commercial vessels to have electronic charts beginning in 2007. We authorize establishment of a National Maritime Enhancement Institute on the Great Lakes to study maritime transportation needs on the Great Lakes, and full safety inspection of towing vessels. We require the Coast Guard to set standards for adequate amounts of potable water on commercial vessels. After many years of studying this issue, we are finally going to deal with it. And we extend the authority of ships operating on the Great Lakes to dispose of dry bulk cargo residue in accordance with standards already set by the Coast Guard for at least a decade. The only disappointment I have with this legislation, and it is a major one, is that we did not come to a resolution of security issues along the lines that the committee agreed upon, the House voted on, and the motion to instruct conferees was passed with an overwhelming vote in this body, and that was to deal with security plans for foreign-flag vessels entering U.S. ports. We passed the affectionately known Port Security Act, known properly as the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and I were at the White House for the signing of this bill, along with Members of the other body. We all patted each other on the back. There was not enough money in that bill on the one hand to carry out the intentions of the legislation, but there was very good and very strong language in that legislation to protect U.S. ports. ``An owner or operator of a vessel . . . shall prepare and submit to the Secretary a security plan for the vessel . . . for deterring a transportation security incident to the maximum extent practicable.'' It goes on to say, ``A vessel or facility for which a plan is required to be submitted to the Secretary under this subsection may not operate after July 1, 2004 unless, A, the plan has been approved by the Secretary; and, B, the vessel or facility is operating in compliance with the plan.'' Well, that seems, on the face of it, very clear language, a very clear directive to the Coast Guard, but hardly was the ink dry when they went to the International Maritime Association and negotiated something quite different and issued regulations saying that instead of reviewing foreign vessel security plans, the Coast Guard will simply accept the security certificates issued by the flag state or by a security organization approved by the flag state under which that vessel operates. Many ships coming into U.S. harbors operate from a flag state country that we know as ``flag states of convenience'' or ``flags of convenience,'' those great seafaring nations of Panama, Malta, Cyprus. Cyprus may have been a seafaring nation B.C., but not in recent times. And under the Coast Guard regulations, the agency would have to accept approvals from these countries or their security organizations. Those countries do not inspire a great deal of security confidence in me or other observers of the security scene. So we came back with the House bill to strengthen that language, make it clear what we intended; and the other body had a little different version. We tried mightily to come to an agreement. When we could not, the conferees agreed to delete language in both bills and leave current law standing. That outcome and this conference report, Mr. Speaker, should not be construed as endorsing the Coast Guard's regulations. They are inconsistent with current law. Current law states very clearly that foreign vessels must have their security plans approved by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating. And those regulations are not in compliance, and they should be revised, not only not in compliance but not providing adequate security. Under these regulations, this is what can and will and is happening. A foreign vessel enters U.S. waters. Under Coast Guard regulations, the Coast Guard will not examine the vessel's security plan unless there is clear evidence that the crew has insufficient knowledge of the security plans and procedures. And even if the Coast Guard finds that the crew does not have sufficient knowledge about security, regulations do not allow the Coast Guard to look at these areas of the security plan for that vessel, identifying restricted areas on the vessel and measures to prevent unauthorized access to those areas, procedures for responding to security threats or breaches of security, procedures for responding to security instructions of the flag state under which that vessel is operating. Duties of shipboard personnel assigned security responsibilities and of other shipboard personnel on security aspects of their duties. Procedures to ensure the inspection, testing, calibration, and maintenance of any security equipment on board the vessel. Identification of the location where the ship's security alter activation point is located. Procedures, instructions, and guidance on the use of the ship security alert system. And yet, the Administration wants us to believe that under this system ships would be secure. This is not the type of security that we need. This is not what the law currently requires. The Coast Guard's regulations must be revised to comply with the law. Apart from this difficult security issue, H.R. 2443 makes many substantive improvements to maritime safety and the quality of life for the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard. I thank Chairman Young, Subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Filner for the cooperation and teamwork in successfully concluding this Conference. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support adoption of this conference report.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for his observations. The gentleman's point and information is accurate, but the reason they are having difficulty getting pilots is for 2 years, pilots have been paid at the rate of a mate. The chairman of the committee knows very well what that means. A pilot ought to be paid better than the pay for a mate, and that pay has stayed there for 2 years and the Coast Guard has failed to act. And so the pilots are saying, We are out of here. They are quitting. You cannot bring a seasoned pilot on board with one season's experience. You are going to run that ship aground. Because the Coast Guard has failed to act, because the pay has not been adjusted and the pilots are feeling abused, they are walking. What is happening is it is costing more for every piece of goods that comes into the Great Lakes. Every item that comes in on those vessels is taking longer, costing more than it would otherwise cost to be delivered to customers, and that means that our Great Lakes St. Lawrence system is less efficient and less competitive. That is not right. That is not fair. The Coast Guard needs to get this thing done and done quickly and fairly and equitably. If they are not going to do it, then we need to find another way to run this operation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I greatly appreciate the gentleman's statement which has laid out very clearly the problem that we face on the Great Lakes. This is really a Great Lakes issue. It does not affect the rest of the Nation. The saltwater ports all have different regimes for pilotage. But this is not a new problem that the gentleman has laid out and detailed in a very clear manner. This goes back to the 1960s when we had a pilotage administration that was separate from the Coast Guard. It was run by a private sector, that is, a nonmilitary, non-Coast Guard, entity. And that was a failure. They did not manage the three pilotage districts, either in effectiveness in getting pilots when and where they were needed or in managing the pay. Then the pilotage administration was absorbed from the Department of Transportation into the Coast Guard. For a while that worked, but the Coast Guard had a retired captain running the program, and he would on weekends be off at his farm in Virginia when they needed pilots to be assigned out of the reserves to guide ocean-going vessels into Great Lakes ports. That was unacceptable. We thought we had that fixed for a while. It was taken out of the Coast Guard, and now it is back in the Coast Guard again. This is not acceptable for ocean shipping that enters the Great Lakes at a cost of as much as $15,000 a day when there are delays, when there is an inadequate reserve of pilots to guide the vessels. The gentleman has put his finger on it. The language that the gentleman offered on the floor which the chairman agreed to accept, which I accepted and which is in this bill, will hopefully prod the process along. But that is not good enough. We need to scrub this whole process from top to bottom, have an independent review of it, and find a better way to deal with pilotage. It is unacceptable that the Coast Guard has not resolved it, the Department of Transportation has not resolved it, and that the Department of Homeland Security got their hands in this mess when they have nothing to do with it and the whole pilotage rule was sent over to Homeland Security. I see the chairman nodding his amusement over this mess which we knew was going to happen when the Coast Guard was taken out of the DOT and put over in Homeland Security. This is one of the fallouts of that whole mess. We have got to have this thing straightened out. I pledge to the gentleman, with the support of our chairman who is a riverboat captain himself and knows how important it is to have good pilots, we will get this thing done and we will work with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). We will get this straightened out because it has to be done.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Manzullo- Velazquez amendment to the Commerce Justice State Appropriations bill. This amendment will provide critical funding for a program that is fundamentally important to our small businesses: the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 7(a) loan program. American small businesses' number one problem is gaining access to affordable capital. Many small businesses face substantial barriers in accessing capital, and are often forced to turn to more costly lending alternatives. As a result, small businesses are often financially strapped with insurmountable debt before their companies have even had a chance to get off the ground. Without access to financing, like that embodied by the 7(a) loan program, companies are unable to target new markets, hire new workers and ultimately succeed. The 7(a) loan program is the SBA's core lending program and accounts for roughly 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in America. 7(a) loans spur economic development in underserved areas. 7(a) loans are used to purchase land or buildings, or to expand existing facilities. 7(a) loans are used to buy new equipment and machinery as well. Most importantly, the 7(a) program creates jobs. Small businesses are the number one job creator in America, accounting for 3 of every 4 new jobs added to the economy. For every $33,000 in 7(a) loans, a new job is created. Just last year, the 7(a) loan program generated 360,000 jobs across America. However, if funding of the 7(a) program is not maintained at its current level our economy and our people will lose many of those jobs, as well as any new jobs and new small businesses that would be created with the help of the 7(a) program. The CJS bill that we consider today provides no funding for the 7(a) program. As the federal deficit will hit a record $477 billion this year, fiscal restraint is important, but this program has already sacrificed significantly over the last few years. According to the General Accounting Office, over the past ten years small business lenders and borrowers have overpaid a billion dollars in miscalculated government fees. Instead the Bush administration and the SBA argue that simply maintaining fees at these ``historic'' levels will be good enough to support a robust 7(a) program. This is just plain wrong. If the CJS bill is approved without this amendment, small businesses will be required to pay the nearly $80 million currently subsidized by the federal government. Based on FY 2003 loan volume and distribution, fees on small businesses will increase by over $40 million. Fees per loan will increase by over $1,000. The Manzullo-Velazquez amendment will ensure that small businesses can still benefit from the program by restoring funding for the 7(a) program to the FY04 level of $79,132,000. This amendment will foster further economic recovery, and stronger job creation. For the good of the economy, for the good of our workforce and for our future, I encourage my colleagues to support the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Father Frank Perkovich, for his fifty years of faithful service and tireless ministry. A native of my hometown, Chisholm, Minnesota, Father Perkovich recently announced his retirement as pastor of Saint Joseph's Catholic Church in Gilbert, Minnesota, and I know that all who know Father Perkovich will miss his original style of spreading ``The Good News.'' Father Perk, as he is known, believed it did not matter how one worshiped as long as it raised one's mind and heart to God. Drawing on his strong Slovenian heritage and the culture of his community, Father Perk created a Mass set to the old ethnic melodies of polka music and celebrated the first Polka Mass in 1973. For the next 30 years, this unusual blend of folk music and holy worship has become internationally popular, and Father Perk's recording of the Polka Mass has become one of the top-selling polka albums of all time. In 1983, Father Perk traveled to Rome and celebrated the Polka Mass on the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican for Pope John Paul II, who blessed the ``Polka Priest's'' endeavor. It was the experience of a lifetime for a humble pastor from a small town in Minnesota who only wanted to create a liturgical service that would bring people together and closer to God. On the occasion of his retirement, I want to join his many friends and parishioners to congratulate Father Perkovich for his many years of service to his Catholic faith community and Minnesota's Iron Range.